- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@aistemos.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 12:02:32 +0100
- To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Cc: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, ahogan@dcc.uchile.cl, semantic-web@w3.org
> On 21 May 2015, at 11:06, henry.story@bblfish.net wrote: > > >> On 21 May 2015, at 10:08, Steve Harris <steve.harris@aistemos.com> wrote: >> >> >>>> Alternatively, some SPARQL servers may use >>>> stable internal identifiers that could serve this purpose (still >>>> requiring normative normalization), but I suspect that there are some >>>> implementations that don’t guarantee such stable identifiers). >>> >>> Right, it would involve enhancing SPARQL servers. >> >> Quite a few can do this already, and there’s a syntax sanctioned by RDF 1.1 >> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-skolemization > > yes, except that skolemization using .well-konwn URLs is ugly, broken, and should > never have made it into RDF1.1 spec. It breaks linked data clients that need to analyse the > full uri for .wellknown urls before deciding wether to follow them. it would be better to have coined bnode URNs of some form. I made a suggestion along those lines at some point. > > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2014Sep/0088.html There’s nothing wrong with dereferencing a skolem URI. That’s what makes it better than a bNode label. It’s perfectly legal to have something at the other end. - Steve
Received on Friday, 22 May 2015 11:19:09 UTC